Six Albright College students presented original psychology research at the National Conference on Undergraduate Research, April 2024, in Long Beach California. The presenters included Katherine Banholzer ’24, Taisha Charles ’24, Mineishka Garcia ’25, Chelsey Nievez ’24, Laura Poynter ’24 and Samantha Raby ’25.
“Question Creation as a Tool to Help Students Understand Mathematics,” was presented by Taisha Charles.
This study applied a cognitive tool to math education to see if it increased positive output in students. Specifically, Charles tested whether creating and answering questions related to the topics students were learning would help them perform better on tests and assignments. The self-generation effect is a phenomenon in cognitive psychology in which subjects are more likely to remember items that they generate rather than those provided. The self-generation effect has been used to help memory in multiple situations. Recall and recognition are generally higher for stimuli that subjects generated than for stimuli that was only viewed. In the current study, a group of seventh graders were separated into a control group, who for two weeks went home every night and answered two questions from their assigned homework, and an experimental group, who for two weeks went home every night and created and answered two questions related to material from class. Both groups completed a pre- and post-experience assessment with the same questions and two questionnaires related to math anxiety.
After compiling, the data showed the hypothesis was statistically significant.
Students significantly improved in both their completion of the math test but also in how much of it they got correct after the two-week period. The experimental group performed significantly better on the tests.
“Priming Effects of Divorce Experience on Photo Gaze Patterns” was presented by Katherine Banholzer, Laura Poynter and Samantha Raby.
This study was an examination of priming effects on participant gaze patterns after viewing divorce scenario videos. Priming effects were studied with three eye tracking technology trials per participant. Each trial had participants watch one of three stimulus videos selected in a randomized order before viewing 100 slides of facial photos and silhouettes. After the three trials, participants were given a demographics form to complete which allowed the presenters to gather basic information (age, gender, college year) as well as parental marital status information. Demographics were kept anonymous, only tied to an anonymous participant number to allow for the data to be compared with the demographics information.
The presenters hypothesized that the priming video (mom blame, dad blame, and no blame) shown would produce priming effects for gaze pattern depending on the gender of the parent mentioned in the video. There were statistical tests conducted that included all 33 participants whose data was collected. Another set of tests were conducted with just 14 participants who retained at least 50% of their data from the eye tracker. The participants who were removed from the analysis had less than 50% of usable data either due to technology malfunction or another unidentified confound.
The study’s result suggested potential implicit biases surrounding gender, but did not suggest an interaction between the video manipulations and gender. If this study were to be recreated in the future, an implicit associations test would be valuable to include before the eye tracking portion of the study.
“How Immigration Status and Skin Tone Effects Perceived Leadership” was presented by Mineishka Garcia and Chelsey Nievez.
This study aimed to investigate the effects of perceived leadership styles based on immigration status, skin tone, and gender. A diverse sample of 66 participants, aged 18-22, were recruited from Albright College. Participants were exposed to manipulated images of faces representing immigrants and non-immigrants with varying skin tones. They rated the leadership styles of the individuals shown in the images using a Likert scale. Results indicated that immigration status influenced the perception of leadership styles, with immigrants being perceived as having a higher leadership style compared to non-immigrants. However, skin tone did not have a significant main effect on perceived leadership styles. Additionally, gender of the image shown interacted with immigration status, with female non-immigrants being perceived as having a higher leadership style.
The results indicated significant biases in perceived leadership.
Non-immigrants (M= 150.48, SD= 28.04) scored higher than immigrants (M=118.60, SD= 24.40), F(1, 65)= 248.67, p<.001, η= 0.793. While there was no main effect for skin tone, a significant interaction between skin tone and immigration status was observed, F(1,65)= 5.20, p = .026, η= 0.074. In terms of gender, females (M=138.30, SD= 24.52) scored slightly higher than males (M=132.93, SD= 27.97), F(1,65)= 6.30, p=0.014, η= 0.089. A significant interaction between immigration status and gender was also noted, F(1, 60)= 296.62, p<.001, η= 0.832.
These findings reveal a notable bias against immigrants in leadership perception, aligning with existing literature on workplace stereotypes. The lack of significant differences based on skin tone was unexpected, considering the prevalent issues of colorism and racism, and might be attributed to the methodology. These implications are significant for organizational diversity and inclusion, highlighting the need to address biases, particularly concerning immigration status.
